I understand that many physicists may not like those conclusions. However, they are based on rigorous mathematical results about IRs of the de Sitter algebra. As noted in my first appeal, those results are described in detail in my publications, e.g., in sections 4 and 5 of my paper in Physical Review D [3], in my paper in Journal of Physics A [8], in my Springer monograph [4] and in other my publications, e.g., in Journal of Mathematical Physics. Those publications could be possible only after approval of highly qualified referees, and my manuscript is based on my results in [3,4,8]. So, as noted in my first appeal, I believe that the only scientific way to reject my manuscript is to explicitly show that something is erroneous either in [3,4,8] or in the manuscript.

In summary, I believe that Dr. Fayyazuddin’s objections against the publication of my manuscript are not based on consistent physical arguments. So, I think that, according to the editorial policy of Physical Review, the manuscript should be either sent for a review or my appeal should be sent to a Board member.

Теперь уже мою статью дали члену Editorial Board, и я получил такой ответ:

The above manuscript has been reviewed by Professor James M. Cline in his capacity as a member of our Editorial Board in accord with our standard procedure for a formal author appeal. A copy of his report is enclosed. In view of this report, we regret to inform you that your appeal is denied. Our decision against publication is maintained, и дальше идет то, что написал James M. Cline:

This paper purports to say something about the baryon asymmetry, but in fact there is no physics to be found in it. The editor was perfectly justified in not sending it out for review, since it would be impossible, and a waste of time on the part of a referee, to find something wrong with a paper that makes no sense from the outset.

То есть этот великий ученый James M. Cline (раз он в Editorial Board of Physical Review D, то он великий ученый по определению) не стал даже делать вид, что он читал статью и appeal (что, вроде, является его обязанностью), а просто написал, что в статье нет физики, и было полностью оправдано не посылать ее на рецензию, т. к. это было бы просто потерей времени для рецензента искать что-то неправильное в статье, которая не имеет смысла с самого начала. Этим он показал, что он не просто тупой, который ничего не понял, но еще и хам, который понятия не имеет о научной этике.

Следующая попытка – журнал Nuclear Physics B, который все эти вопросы рассматривает. И опять статья попала к Hubert Saleur, который, как я писал в главе 6, отверг мою другую статью со стандартным текстом и потом даже не захотел отвечать на appeal. И теперь он отверг статью с этим же самым текстом. То есть, этот текст у него заготовлен на все случаи жизни когда он хочет отвергнуть статью, и совершенно не важно о чем статья.

Наконец, еще одна попытка – Journal of Mathematical Physics. Статья была сразу отвергнута просто потому, что Associate Editor написал без всякого объяснения “This paper does not present an important result in mathematical physics.”, продемонстрировав, что он либо просто тупой, что ничего не понял, либо даже не пытался понять. И, конечно, я написал appeal:

The rejection of my paper was based on the Associate Editor’s comment consisting of one sentence: “This paper does not present an important result in mathematical physics.” This comment, given without any explanation, indicates that the Associate Editor did not carefully read the paper and/or was unable to understand its results. The fact that the paper contains fundamental new results in mathematical physics has been explained in the cover letter and in the paper itself. However, in view of the comment, I will try to briefly explain this point again.

The concept of particle-antiparticle is a fundamental concept of mathematical physics and particle physics. This concept is considered in detail in my book recently published by Springer: Felix Lev, Finite Mathematics as the Foundation of Classical Mathematics and Quantum Theory. With Application to Gravity and Particle theory. ISBN 978–3–030–61101–9. Springer, https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783030611002. Here it is explained that the concept has a physical meaning only in very special cases when the symmetry algebra is such that its irreducible representations (IRs) contain states with either only positive or only negative energies, i.e., the IRs cannot contain states with both signs of energies. For algebras important for particle physics this takes place only for IRs of the Poincare and anti-de Sitter Lie algebras over complex numbers. Those algebras are special degenerate cases of more general algebras for which IRs contain states with both signs of energies, and therefore for such algebras the concept of particle-antiparticle does not have a physical meaning. At the present stage of the universe the Poincare symmetry works with a very high accuracy and that is why at this stage the concept of particle-antiparticle also is valid with a very high accuracy. However, at very early stages of the universe the symmetry algebras cannot be such that the concept of particle-antiparticle has a physical meaning. This immediately explains that the known problem of the baryon asymmetry of the universe (BAU) does not arise. The explicit consideration of relevant IRs requires lengthy calculations, and they were described in the book and in my papers published in known journals (in particular, in my two rather long papers in JMP). But the BAU problem has been mentioned in the book very briefly. On the contrary, in the given paper (which is rather short) I explain only the meaning of the results on IRs with references to the book, and then explain how the results on IRs are applied to the BAU problem.

When Professor Solovej became the Editor in Chief of JMP, he wrote